NYFF: Underworld

Underworld (1927) ***1/2

Directed by Josef von Sternberg
Written by Charles Furthman

Starring:
George Bancroft as 'Bull' Weed
Evelyn Brent as 'Feathers' McCoy
Clive Brook as Rolls Royce Wensel
Fred Kohler as 'Buck' Mulligan

80 Minutes(Not Rated)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Festivals like to include some classic film programming, and the New York Film Festival is no exception. I try to pick at least one-in Toronto I ended up seeing one last minute, a French film from the 80's, but whenever I have a chance to see a silent film on the big screen, I jump at the chance-and NYFF managed to offer me just that. The film is the classic 1927 film "Underworld," a film that transformed the gangster genre, and provided the beginning of what are now seen as "cliches." But this is where they all came from, and this is the cornerstone of mafia films as we know them now. There is just something about the silent screen-the look of the image, the way the actors look, the facial expressions, even reading the title cards, that make them unlike any other movie that you see. The festival also allowed us to listen to live music with a three piece band playing keyboard, drums, little chimes, and every now and then a special sound effect-a train whistle at one point which actually made me jump a little.

The movie is about Bull Weed, a rather interesting head mafia character, played by George Bancroft (who has a great laugh. . .or laugh expressions in this case). Bull Weed watches in a bar one night-or maybe a speakeasy?-as innocent and minding his own business janitor, Rolls Royce, who has a criminal record, is taunted by flower shop manager 'Buck' Mulligan. When Mulligan goes too far, Bull Weed steps in and takes Rolls Royce under his wing. He already took a young woman named Feathers under his wing, and the two of them decide to get back Mulligan, before Mulligan strikes first.

The film takes a drastic turn in the third act, and then we get the shoot 'em up aspect of the mafia, never glorifying it, but the silent screen and many films from the past, have a way of taking dark subjects like the mafia, drinking, smoking, and killing, and giving them so much sexual energy, and this is no exception. Everything seems romanticized in these old films-from the rather revealing costumes, to the good looking people doing bad things, to that one good looking woman who smokes her cigarettes, looks up in the air, and blows out. It's heated, and this film has that energy emitting every second on the screen. The silent performances are all great. Bancroft has this insane maniacal laugh every now and then, and he does it within the first thirty seconds on film. And thats when you know that you are dealing with a rather unstable character-a bit hotheaded when it comes to ego. Evelyn Brent, who plays Feathers, has the classic silent screen beauty look-and wears some great period outfits. The film is also intense and exciting, and the great live musical score just added to the effect.

But you have to remember that you are really watching "the first" of these kind of stories. "The first" of the plot twists and shoot out scenes and stunts that we've seen before in later films. If you put that in your head you'll forgive the fact that every few minutes its like we're watching a rerun. But there is still something so special about seeing a silent film on the big screen that leaves such a better impression in my head than when I am at home or watching a video. Being with the audience, watching the eighty year old film on a big screen, with live music-like how the movies used to be. It's a trip back in time, and thats why I always opt to see these movies in theatres. And this is quite a winner.

Good Luck Chuck

Good Luck Chuck *1/2

Directed by Mark Helfrich
Written by Josh Stolberg, based on the short story by Steve Glenn

Starring:
Dane Cook as Charlie
Jessica Alba as Cam Wexler
Dan Fogler as Stu

96 minutes(Rated R for sequences of strong sexual content including crude dialogue, nudity, language and some drug use. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, "Good Luck Chuck" is a dirty movie. The rating does not lie by a single letter. And by dirty, I mean one of the filthiest and nasty films in recent memory. Summer comedies like "Superbad" and "Knocked Up" had their share of raunch, but they did it in a rather tasteful matter-the dirty humor meshed with some actually sweet moments to make something a little special-more so "Superbad" than the rather overrated "Knocked Up." But "Good Luck Chuck" takes dirty jokes about sex and sexuality, and turn them into a rather uncomfortable and unpleasant time-it attempts to be bit romantic, but at that point the film has pushed the limits from down and dirty comedy, to just plain filth. And while I did get a laugh or two, for every ten rapid jokes, there are about two winners, and there's at least over a hundred jokes here. The laugh to frown ratio is bad.

Dane Cook impressed me over the summer with his more dramatic turn in "Mr. Brooks," but he gets another low grade in my book here as Charlie Logan. As a boy, Charlie refused to have sex with a young goth girl during a game of "Seven Minutes in Heaven," and in return she put a hex on him. Years later, he notices a trend. He'll date a woman, they will dump him, and then the next guy that they meet they marry. Repeat. He is convinced that he is cursed, and at first he decides to just enjoy this. But after banging woman after woman, he finds that the fact that they are just using him for the next guy leaves him empty and alone. His dirty plastic surgeon friend Stu (played by Dan Fogler, a Tony Award winner that has been in both this and "Balls of Fury," and calls that a film career) says that he's crazy, but everything changes for Charlie when he meets Kam, played by Jessica Alba. Kam is klutzy, rather goofy, girl, but Charlie falls hard for her, and is scared that if he sleeps with her, she'll leave him for the next guy that she meets. And Charlie tries to keep the girl and get rid of the hex that has haunted him for years.

I saw Jessica Alba on an episode of 'David Letterman' a few weeks ago, and was struck by how clever and funny and even a little witty she is. The banter between her and Letterman was almost golden, and made for great television. But whatever charm that she has is real life is killed by such terrible scripts, and "Good Luck Chuck" is no exception. And her banter with Cook is even worse. I don't mind raunchy humor, but it has to eventually serve a purpose, and maybe even be blended with a little heart-"40 Year Old Virgin," "Knocked Up," and "Superbad" are three films that were massive hits because they managed to have humanity with their dirt. The romance aspect here is so obvious, so cookie-cutter, and so paint by numbers, that it doesn't even offer a hint of realism. And the plot is insanely silly, but in a rather stupid way as opposed to offering any real laughs. Sure, it had a couple of laughs-I literally use the word "couple" here-but on the whole it's a rather unpleasant experience, pushing the limit at times for no other reason that to push the limit. A montage sequence of Charlie enjoying his curse ends up pushing the line into pornography, and it goes on for quite some time. This is hopefully a comedy that will vanish to the ends of the Earth, and Cook should work on his drama-"Mr. Brooks" was a grand time. On the other hand, "Good Luck Chuck" sucks.

Now Playing At:
Area Theatres

The Kingdom

The Kingdom **1/2

Directed by Peter Berg
Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan

Starring:
Jamie Foxx as Ronald Fleury
Chris Cooper as Grant Sykes
Jennifer Garner as Janet Mayes
Jason Bateman as Adam Leavitt
Ashraf Barhom as Colonel Faris Al Ghazi
Ali Suliman as Sergeant Haytham
Jeremy Piven as Damon Schmidt
Frances Fisher as Elaine Flowers
Danny Huston as Gideon Young

110 Minutes(Rated R for intense sequences of graphic brutal violence, and for language. )
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Kingdom' is a mainstream Hollywood film, with a massive cast-Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper, Jamie Foxx, Jason Bateman, Jeremy Piven, Danny Huston, and Richard Jenkins as the big guns-that feels that it is a piece of more importance than it actually is. The script is really a police procedure films-a story about a few agents trying to track down the bad guys. And it works on that level. And then at times it tries to go into the level of "political messages," and the final two lines of the movie throw such a forced message down our throats that it almost killed the whole thing. In addition, director Peter Berg-whose last movies "Friday Night Lights" was not at the top of my Best of 2004 list-thinks that his directing job will earn him some kind of awards acclaim, and he decides to try to "grit" the experience, by moving the camera constantly-even if it is just ever so slowly. Both of these things-the camera work and the ego-take away strongly from what could have been a well done thriller, if it just ended up with what its strengths were.

Foxx, Cooper, Garner, and Bateman play three special FBI agents (Ronald Fleury, Grant Sykes, Janet Mayes, and Adam Leavitt, in that order) that end up going to Saudi Arabia after an explosion and attack during a softball game left several dead-a few agents as well, including the one that taught Janet how to be a successful agent. They end up being assigned to the case, and travel to Saudi Arabia to find the men or man that orchestrated the attack.

That is basically the only amount of plot here without revealing any twists, because they end up meeting people there, investigating the case, and being double crossed, all of that fun stuff. And as a police film it manages to work at times. It's when Berg gets ahead of himself and seems to emit the idea that he is making the political intrigue film of the year, when other thrillers like "Rendition" are certainly getting higher accolades. Berg doesn't seem to want to stop moving the camera, an effect that is obviously attempting to make the film more intense and more like the viewer is the observer, instead of letting the dialogue and the performances work for themselves. At times its really hard to determine what is happening on the screen. The ending is basically a message-one of those "we can be just as bad as them" things, which is not a message that we haven't seen before, and certainly will be seen again.

Some of the acting is quite good. Garner is at her usual-that tough girl atmosphere-for once her turn in a romance film "13 Going on 30" was out of character. Chris Cooper is never bad at all, even here where he seems like he is coasting his way through-he never really seems to have a character, but he manages to be charismatic anyway. Jamie Foxx is going lower and lower on my "Good Actors" list-after "Ray" he managed to bomb in "Stealth," "Miami Vice," and his work in "The Kingdom" is nothing special-he seems to be confined to a single facial expression-a look of seriousness and intent-all the time. Bateman is decent-his usual smart mouth self-and it was fun to see Jenkins and Huston-two fine character actors that float in and out of movies all the time. The whole movie just reeked of the word "mediocre," and if it was a mediocre film that knew it was nothing special and just a way to spend some time, that might have been alright-but Berg works as if the material is the Holy Grail, and the movie is just filled with so much self-importance that it's hard to recommend.

Now Playing At:
Area Theatres

NYFF: 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days ****

Directed by Cristian Mungiu
Written by Cristian Mungiu

Starring:
Anamaria Marinca as Otilia
Laura Vasiliu as Gabita
Vlad Ivanov as Domnu' Bebe
Alexandru Potocean as Adi

113 Minutes(Not Yet Rated)
---------------------------------------------------------
There was one reason that I was hesitant to see Cristian Mungiu's new film "4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days," but there was also one reason why I made sure I had a ticket for it when I made my orders. The reason I was hesitant is quite ironic, because I was hesitant because this film won the top prize at this year's Cannes Film Festival-the prestigious Golden Palm. Why would I be uncertain about seeing a film that won such a big award, you may ask? Well, looking back at the last four films to win the award, I wasn't very big on any of them. In 2003, Gus van Sant won with "Elephant." I quite hate that movie. In 2004, "Fahrenheit 9/11" Not another favorite. Then in 2005, we have "L'Enfant," which I found slow and tedious, and then 2006 "The Wind That Shakes the Barley," a good movie, don't get me wrong, but other films on the selection were much richer and more deserving-"Babel," 'Pan's Labyrinth," "Volver" or "Red Road" to name a few. The reason why I was stoked about seeing it was because this is a Romanian film, and while that seems like a minor reason to be excited, Romania is part of a New Wave of their films, and in the last year I have seen masterpieces like "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu," and "12:08 East of Bucharest," as well as "California Dreamin'" which I saw in Toronto. So a Romanian film wins the Golden Palm.

What are the results?

This film is done in the standard way that I've seen these Romanian films. Handheld cameras, long takes, actual acting, little or no music except for the credits, or whatever is playing in the background. We start right in the middle of the action, in the dorm room of Otilia and Gabita in 1987 Romania. It is a tough time in Romania-everything is monitored, bought or sold under the table, ID's are used for everything. That is why it is tough for the two girls to get away with what they are planning. Otilia is helping her friend get an abortion, a process that is difficult under the circumstances, and with the help of Bebe, they end up getting a hotel room and try to get the process done, safe and sound.

Even though Gabita is the one getting the operation done, and you would think that she would be the person we follow, this is the entire opposite. For one thing, this is not a film about abortion-that is just one of the plot devices used to move this character study forward, similar to the great 2004 film "Vera Drake." And the main character is Otilia, who we follow from the very first second up until the very end, when she gives a quite haunting and memorable look at the camera. Otilia is played by an actress named Anamaria Marinca who is so good that you are compelled to the screen while she walks down a street. This is a piece with several different topics and themes going on, but its always Otilia's story. There is Otilia's story with her friend, and the vast extent that she goes to make sure that Gabita ends up alright-and she goes several levels to make sure this is possible. There is Otilia's story with her boyfriend, Adi, who wants her to meet his family. And then we have a political piece about why Otilia is forced to go the extreme when it should be quite simple. Anamaria Marinca does her job so naturally, as does the camera and the environment, to make this quite a realistic story, something that I've seen at least in "Lazarescu" and "12:08," not so much 'California Dreamin'," even though that film does realism in a different way.

Looking at the other nominations from Cannes, I've only seen a handful of them-'Death Proof," "Import/Export," "The Man from London," "No Country for Old Men," "Persepolis," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," and 'Zodiac," with a few coming up that I'll get to see, but its obvious that Cristian Mungiu deserved his award. He had crafted a quite compelling, deep, and realistically made film, just continuing to prove that Romania is the country to watch as far as international cinema is concerned-and everything I have the chance to see a film from that country from now on-no matter what awards it has won-I will be first in line.

IFC has their hands on this one, like they did "The Wind That Shakes the Barley," and they should be releasing it early next year, although I don't know why they are waiting.

The Darjeeling Limited

The Darjeeling Limited ***

Directed by Wes Anderson
Written by Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola

Starring:
Owen Wilson as Francis
Adrien Brody as Peter
Jason Schwartzman as Jack
Amara Karan as Rita
Camilla Rutherford as Alice
Irfan Khan as The Father
Bill Murray as The Businessman
Anjelica Huston as Patricia

91 Minutes(Rated R for language. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Anderson is probably the film maker that I got the most influence out of when I was just starting my journey into cinema. I saw his movie "The Royal Tenenbaums" in early 2002-I was twelve years old-and I realized that there were more to movies than mainstream fare like "Zoolander" and "Rat Race," and it changed my feelings on the whole thing. I wanted more. When his 2004 film "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou' came out, I thought it wasn't as good as his last film, but a masterpiece all on its own. And his other film "Rushmore" I enjoyed, but found it hard to get into "Bottle Rocket," his first movie. Now three years have passed since "Aquatic" and we have his newest movie "The Darjeeling Limited,"-a much weaker Anderson than I am used to, but still quite delightful, well acted, well made, and has its fair shares of classic Anderson poignancy. Anderson assembled some of his regulars-pal Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Anjelica Huston, as well as Adrien Brody who is new but very welcome.

His story is another tale of a fractured family. We begin with a man-regular Anderson actor Bill Murray-trying to run to catch a train. He misses the train, but Peter-played by Brody-manages to catch it, and we watch as Murray stands there dejected. This is a cameo that was not only fun to say "Look, it's Bill Murray,' but also serves as an in joke. Murray, an Anderson regular, decided to take an acting break around when this movie went into production-this is a genius little gag with Murray actually missing the train for the adventure, but making an appearance anyway. On the train-called The Darjeeling Limited-we meet Peter and his brothers, Francis (Wilson) and Jack (Schwartzman), who have not seen one another since the death of their father a year ago. Francis, who got into a car accident and has his whole face bandaged for the entire film, got them together in India to go on a spiritual journey and become brothers again. He really has a hidden agenda, to go see their mother who is living in a convent, but neglects to tell the others. Eventually they get kicked off the train and are alone in India with twelve suitcases, a printer, and a laminating machine, and they get caught up in a current event with the Indian locals.

Anderson has always been perfect with set design and imagery, and with the backdrop of India he doesn't have to build many sets. He is a master of small detail, and it's worth seeing "The Darjeeling Limited" on the big screen to just set let the visuals wash over you. As opposed to his other films, this is more a character piece, with the emphasis being on the three brothers-their chemistry together is perfection. They nag at one another as only brothers can, they lie about certain things to others The inkling of a plot is introduced when they meet Indian locals, but that is so loose and brief that it doesn't even count-its more of a little adventure. Anderson does plenty of his signature ninety degree camera moves, and his focus on one image in the frame, but at times his camera motion got to me. Instead of shifting back and forth once in a frame, he made these scenes that consist of nothing but back and forth camera motion, and while they are skillfully choreographed, it became a bit annoying at times, I will say. The fact that Anderson makes similar movies is a fact that has yet to bother me-he has perfected his own style naturally, something that Noah Baumbach-whose new movie "Margot at the Wedding" leaves a lot to be desired-is trying to force upon us.

In the end, "The Darjeeling Limited" is funny, looks great, and is well acted, but it didn't leave me with the massive desire to see it right away like Anderson's last two films did. This one seemed a bit more rushed out, a minor work in a filmography with three great films already. Even though there was a three year difference, Anderson made this quickly while his animated film "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is still in pre-production. He's going back to that right away, I hear. When I watched "Tenenbaums," and certainly "Life Aquatic," I felt like I was watching a massive event-and "Life Aquatic" actually looks like a huge film to make-so many details and effects, and it seemed exhausting. There was something missing here-a certain element of magic that was there in Anderson's other movies. Maybe it was because this was a more quickly made project, or maybe it was the absence of Mark Mothersbaugh for the soundtrack-which has great Rolling Stones and The Kinks songs to boot. Maybe it was the short run time-barely ninety minutes. I could have used more time with the characters. It would have been welcome. Something left me a little empty after "The Darjeeling Limited," which was always there during his other movies-excepting "Bottle Rocket." I liked this, but this is a weaker effort from Anderson than his last two films.

Now Playing At:
Regal Union Square
AMC Lincoln Square 13 and IMAX

NYFF: The Orphanage

The Orphanage ***

Directed by Juan Antonio Bayona
Written by Sergio G. Sánchez

Starring:
Belén Rueda as Laura
Fernando Cayo as Carlos
Geraldine Chaplin as Aurora
Montserrat Carulla as Benigna
Mabel Rivera as Pilar
Andrés Gertrúdix as Andrés
Roger Príncep as Simón

100 Minutes(Rated R for some disturbing content.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the heels of last year's great film "Pan's Labyrinth," "The Orphanage" may seem like it's a copy-it even has the "Pan's" director labeled as a producer to boot-but this is a very different movie, although equally, and equally something to be seen in two ways-one as a nice and happy fantasy story, and another as being a dark and dreary fairy tale horror story. Or it could be seen as both, which is the way I like to see it. Something dark and depressing, but also filled with a certain amount of hope. One thing that makes "The Orphanage" more amazing than it is is that this is the first film by both the director Juan Antonio Bayona, and the screenwriter Sergio G. Sánchez. Sanchez is filled with many tricks up his sleeve, and his script does call influence from films like "Rosemary's Baby" and "Poltergeist." And Bayona directs with a certain amount of skill-mastering creepy atmosphere, interesting motifs and ways to deliver scares, and manages to direct some amazing performances, especially by actress Belén Rueda.

Rueda plays Laura, who grew up in an orphanage before managing to get adopted somewhere else. Years later she has bought the orphanage and is living there with her husband and her HIV positive adopted son, Simon-but her son knows nothing of that. Laura plans on getting five more children to add to the home. When Simon ends up making a whole bunch of friends who are invisible, and then ends up missing during the big adoption day, Laura becomes convinced that these friends she thought were imaginary are real and have taken Simon for some reason. She ends up contacting a medium-played by Geraldine Chaplin in a great role-to try and figure out the secrets of the orphanage and to find her son.

Now story wise, this is really a standard haunted house story on one level. And the house ends up being a quite interesting character on its own. The script has several spooky scenes, and none of that silly cat jumps out of a closet, or man suddenly appears in mirror jump scenes. The scares here are not forceful and strong, but quietly and eerie. Something will flutter on the screen or in the background and then the scene will continue-the music does not focus on that creepy thing we just saw, and the scene is not founded on it, but we know that something strange is clearly going on. It isn't until the ending until you realize that this is really a fork in the road type of film as far as genre is concerned. We have a ghost story, we have this haunted house genre piece, and we have this fantasy ending, similar to "Peter Pan"-which is referenced several times though out. And then we have the darker side-a story of a woman that is crazy, and constantly haunted by tragedy. Are the ghosts something that she is making up because she is in denial about her son dying? Or is the house really haunted and her son is in danger?

We are kept guessing constantly, and Rueda plays both levels with brilliance-she manages to convince us that there is a ghost problem, but at the same time appears subtly crazy. We never go overboard with the insanity portion, and in a weaker film with a worse script there would be more influence by the husband character in trying to get her help. "The Orphanage" does not drag with petty B-movie subplots like that, and instead we actually get to the point. This is easily a film with the most actual clean scares that I've seen in a while, and joins the upcoming "The Poughkeepsie Tapes" as two of the best horrors in the last few years.

NYFF: The Man from London

The Man from London ***

Directed by Bela Tarr
Written by Bela Tarr, based on the novel by Georges Simenon

Starring:
Miroslav Krobot as Maloin
Ági Szirtes as Mrs. Brown
János Derzsi as Brown
Erika Bók as Henriette
István Lénárt as Morrison

132 Minutes(Not Yet Rated)
------------------------------------------------------
"The Man from London" is my first experience with director/writer Bela Tarr, even though of late I have heard lavish praises from him in certain places. I must say, this is not a film for everybody, and even though at times the pacing was brutally slow-and several people actually walked out of the screening room to highlight this point-I stuck to it, and this is one of the rare examples of recent memory where a film doesn't only tell a good story, but remains truly artistic and strongly symbolic. I didn't love this movie, but I was able to appreciate the subtle touches, the beautiful images, and even though at times it lost me during its lengthy run time, it kept me interested in the story on the whole.

We begin very quietly, an epic shot of a boat in the harbor-this lasts about five minutes at least as we go up the boat and around it to the main action. A train porter named Maloin gets his hands on a briefcase full of stolen money. He goes about his business-he visits a woman who I think was his wife, complains about his daughter having to wear such skimpy clothing to work, goes to a bar and talks to the bartender, all while being followed by a mysterious man who seems to know exactly what is going on.

The plot is very thin, but this is more a film about observation than story. It took me a while to get adjusted to the pacing, but Tarr starts things off slow with a music less and long opening credit sequence-simple white text on black screen. After a while I began to take notice of small detail-there is a constant emphasis on isolation at times-almost every character as well as background characters, appear to be alone. The man walks around by himself, despite being followed, we see a man in a bar eating alone, we see a woman cleaning alone, we see a little boy playing in an alley alone. And even when people are together, for example the man character and the woman played by a misplaced Tilda Swinton-who is used more as a face as everything she says is overdubbed in Hungarian-they are never on the same level emotionally. Take a scene where a police officer tells a woman things about her husband. She just stares blankly, tearing up from the knowledge, while he continues to talk. And he always talks in beat to the background music, which plays over and over again in nightmarish fashion. In fact, I think the only scene that actually has two people on the same level is a scene where the man goes shopping with his daughter, able to buy her something to cover her body while she is working because he has come upon such money. Is this an ironic statement about how money can bring people together? I don't know, honestly, but this is a strong discussion film, able to be seen several times before putting the pieces together. I only have a small grasp on it myself.

The direction is quite lovely. Tarr someone pulls off some amazing shots, where I wonder if the camera man was transparent. At times I was amazed by how he pulled some things off. And he shoots in beautiful noir black and white, even though many of the characters here are the opposite of classic noir characters. The main character is usually mysterious, just like here, but has a personality, despite getting deeper and deeper into trouble. The main female character, usually a rather sexy and seductive woman, looks torn and haggard all the time (this is the Swinton character.) The visuals are really something to feast upon here, and even when the story takes a lull there is always something to watch. I think my main problem with "The Man from London" was the slow pacing-at times it just seemed a bit too much and pretentious. I can't justify the people walking out of the room-they hardly gave the movie a chance-but it is hard to focus during certain parts, especially at the start since you aren't expecting it.

I am curious about Tarr's seven hour film, which I read a little bit about in the program book. But this is a film for acquired taste, but still an interesting work that needs to be seen several time to get a proper grasp of.

New York Film Festival: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Before getting into my review for "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," first a few words about The New York Film Festival, which is now on its 45th year. This is the first time I have ever gone, but I can see huge differences between this and the festival in Toronto-and the smaller amount of movies is not the only thing. In fact, many of the movies that are playing in this festival were already in Toronto, with the exception of the opening night feature-this year was Wes Anderson's new film 'The Darjeeling Limited," which is also out in normal theatres now.

The festival shifts around Lincoln Center-the Walter Reade, the Rose Ballroom, and the Avery Fisher Hall. Whenever I go to the Lincoln Center area, I am amazed by how stuffy most of the audience is-usually filled with elderly rich people, who seem to look down upon anybody else around them. I wanted to get my seat-they assign seats here, without even giving you an option of what level you would like, many of my tickets are front row-and these two people actually asked me if I was sure that this was my row, and I could tell that they didn't want to have to move just for the sake of moving if I was wrong. I always had problems with audiences in Lincoln Center, and this film festival is bringing out the most stuffy and snobby people I have ever seen.

The theatre that most of the films are playing in-the Rose Hall-isn't anything to write home about. The seats are hard to get comfortable in, and layout isn't pleasing on the eye, and the balcony level makes it hard to get into the movie because there is so much distraction, the front row is terrible, and the only empty seats for those with front row tickets to sneak into are on the sides where you have to watch the film on a total 90 degree angle. I'm also finding it hard to find the love of film from people-Toronto had a community feel-we were all in this together-I feel more alone at these screenings than I do when I am actually in a theatre alone. It's quite sad really.

Those are my opening thoughts on the festival-regardless of how bad the people are, the venue, and the environment, the films are still good, and I've seen three winners so far. My opening selection was 'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly."

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly ****

Directed by Julian Schnabel
Written by Ronald Harwood, based on the novel by Jean-Dominique Bauby

Starring:
Mathieu Amalric as Jean-Dominique Bauby
Emmanuelle Seigner as Céline Desmoulins
Marie-Josée Croze as Henriette Durand
Anne Consigny as Claude
Patrick Chesnais as Dr. Lepage
Niels Arestrup as Roussin
Olatz Lopez Garmendia as Marie Lopez

112 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for nudity, sexual content and some language. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's always a good sign when the festival starts off with a masterpiece, and that is what "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"-a visual and emotional one, that caught me from the first second with its unique visual style. At least ninety percent of this film is told from the perspective of a stroke victim-literally through his eyes, which open and close, and blink, and see things blurry, and get out of focus when he tears up.

This is the story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, a real life person that amazed people when he actually wrote a book while under a stroke. He wakes up in the hospital and is amazed to find that he cannot move. The doctors tell him that with any luck he will be able to move and speak back to normal soon, and after much resistant, Jean-Do decides to stop pitying himself and get on with the treatment. This includes speech therapy with Henriette, played by the very pretty Marie-Josée Croze who is kind of like a French Naomi Watts. She devises a system where she reads letters of the alphabet, and whenever she gets to a letter that he wants to use, he blinks, and she writes it down, and even though it takes time she manages to communicate with him that way. And this is how he wrote his book, letter for letter, word for word, blink for blink.

At the same time we learn a little bit about Jean-Do's personal life, but only enough to get a feel for who he is. We learn about his ex-wife, who is clearly still in love with him, as well as another woman that it seems he had an affair with. This is meshed through the visitors, his phone calls, and his dreams. There is also a great performance by Max von Sydow, much better here than in "Rush Hour 3," as Jean's father, and possibly one of the most emotional scenes of the year. But these personal stories are just there to explain Jean's situation, the real focus of the film is a man who has to basically start from scratch after getting hurt. And the visuals add to pain, literally letting us go into the eyes and thoughts of a victim. There was an episode of "ER" that was similar-the only actual episode of that show I was able to sit through-which also did this, but this goes the added measure of distorting the visuals, and making you uncomfortable. A scene where his right eye gets stitched up is actually painful to watch.

Mathieu Amalric, who plays the lead role, is brilliant, and this is his best work since 2005's "King's and Queen." He really dives headfirst into this, not only playing a good looking magazine editor, but also looking his worst whenever we see what he looks like after the accident. And the ending is mildly abrupt, but the main focus of the story is done, and it's quite chilling as it is. Miramax Films has their hands on this one, and are releasing it in December. I am also quite proud of the MPAA, who rated this a PG-13, even though it does have brief male and female nudity. And even though France's official film to submit to the Oscar's was "Persepolis," and not this, this is still a masterpiece on its own-one of the most emotional and very best movies I've seen this year.

Feast of Love

Feast of Love ***

Directed by Robert Benton
Written by Allison Burnett, based on the book by Charles Baxter

Starring:
Morgan Freeman as Harry Stevenson
Greg Kinnear as Bradley Thomas
Radha Mitchell as Diana
Billy Burke as David Watson
Selma Blair as Kathryn
Alexa Davalos as Chloe
Toby Hemingway as Oscar
Stana Katic as Jenny
Erika Marozsán as Margaret Vekashi
Jane Alexander as Esther Stevenson
Fred Ward as Bat
Margo Martindale as Mrs. Maggarolian
Missi Pyle as Agatha

102 Minutes(Rated R for strong sexual content, nudity and language. )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I watch different types of films in different types of ways. For example, I don't quite watch "Across the Universe" in the same way that I would watch "Mr. Woodcock," only because one film was actually made it try to be good, and the other was made to make a quick buck and to pass off as comedy. I am not as hard on movies like "Mr. Woodcock" because in my eyes, if they are successful in what they try to do-be a harmless little PG-13 comedy to make kids laugh on a rainy Saturday-than they did their job. Movies like "Feast of Love," even though it was playing at one of the top art houses in NYC, really is nothing more than a romance film, and if it manages to tell a good love story-or in this case a few-than it is a success. I only bring this up because I saw this the same day as Ang Lee's new film "Lust, Caution," and gave that a much lower rating than this. But I expected a certain something from that film. With "Feast of Love" you know what you're getting into, and its remarkably entertaining for what it was.

"Feast of Love" is based on the novel by Charles Baxter-which adds a "The"-and I just finished the book a few days ago. Of course since this film is a very faithful adaptation, I had to relive it all again, but these are characters that are fun to watch (and read about for that matter) and I did not mind. The novel is quite hard to adapt given the way its told. Baxter writes himself in the novel, and he interviews the characters-Bradley, Diana, Kathryn, David, and Chloe, as well as a character in the film but in a different form-and its all for a project called The Feast of Love. In the film, instead of Baxter being there, we have Morgan Freeman as Harry Stevenson, the other character from the novel who is probably the least written about, the connector of the various stories and characters. Each chapter of the novel is told in the narrative of one of these characters, which makes for interesting tone change and perspective. Film its hard to do something like this. Harry goes out walking one night after not being able to sleep, and reflects on the last few months. He is a regular at a coffee shop called Jitters, run by Bradley Smith (played by Greg Kinnear.) Bradley is married to Kathryn (Selma Blair) who realizes that she is in love with another woman and leaves him. Bradley, dejected and depressed, goes to great lengths to get his feline companion Bradley JR back, after his sister, who was watching him, ends up bonding with it. He eventually meets another woman, Diana, who seems to be more interested in her lengthy affair with a married man, David, than her upcoming nuptials to Bradley. We then meet Chloe and Oscar, two young lovebirds that, when they are not climbing on top of one another, are planning their futures, even though it might turn out bleak. And then we have Harry living through all of this love, married to his long term wife Esther, and even though he is great at dishing out advice, he has a problem that he can't get over himself.

Now I really did prefer the novel over the film, as is most cases, but like the novel, the movie manages to be so true and deals with the topic of love very well. I am sucker for relationship movies done right-movies like "The Hottest State," "Before Sunset," and even "Once" to a certain degree. When love is shown right on the screen it could be quite lovely. And here we get little snippets of relationships, character experiencing love in all different ages and periods, and it all really is handled quite well. We have terrific performances, almost all around. Morgan Freeman does his usual-he narrates the movie, gives advice to sad people, and for the first time in a while gets an added dimension of his own. Greg Kinnear really is the only person that could play Bradley. Bradley, and Kinnear for that matter, have that sheepish quality-rather sweet and even innocent in a way, despite being destroyed so many times. Radha Mitchell does something very different here than I've seen her do, playing a more cold and cruel person-channeling her work in "Melinda and Melinda" more than anything. The only real bad acting work here is Toby Hemingway, who plays Oscar, and I could never see that bad boy image that we are supposed to. I checked the IMDB to see his previous work, and "The Covenant" seemed to be his biggest credit-and that was an awful awful picture. And the subplot involving his evil father-a creature known as The Bat-works in the book because that subplot goes somewhere, but here its only hinted at at times, and they never make the full plot circle with him.

Despite bleak scenes, and rather depressed and cynical characters, "Feast of Love" is really a story about hope and new beginnings. Despite heartbreak and depression, and even though nobody is perfect, everyone does want someone to love and even has love to give. And the ending ends on a rather sad note, but also one full of hopeful resolution to come. Endings are always there at the beginnings, it's just a constant cycle. This is a true romance story for adults, and I'm shocked, and even slightly pleased, but the general release it got. It's a good film.

Now Playing At:
Angelika Film Center
AMC Empire 25
AMC Lincoln Square 13 and IMAX

Trade

Trade ***

Directed by Marco Kreuzpaintner
Written by Jose Rivera

Starring:
Kevin Kline as Ray
Alicja Bachleda-Curus as Veronica
Paulina Gaitan as Adriana
Kathleen Gati as Irina Silayev
Pavel Lychnikoff as Vadim Youchenko
Anthony Crivello as Detective Henderson
Kate del Castillo as Laura
Cesar Ramos as Jorge

119 Minutes(Rated R for disturbing sexual material involving minors, violence including a rape, language and some drug content. )
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have yet to see the trailer for the simple and straightforward, but well made, film "Trade" I have a hard time recommending it or not. For those who have seen it, it is undeniably brilliant-possibly one of the best trailers in recent memory, along with 'Jesse James." It is powerful, rather haunting, and its even possible that you might shed a tear, and its is joined by a Rufus Wainwright song which is kind of beautiful in its own way. The trailer will certainly make you want to see the movie. However I could tell you not to watch the trailer because it really does almost reveal the entire plot and story, as well as all the twists. It took away a certain amount of tension away from my experience, but I could still save your's.

"Trade" does not end up being the masterpiece that the trailer promised, but it did end up being quite a good movie, despite its flaws, and its sometimes ability to teeter onto the edge of trying to be too much like "Amores Perros" or "Babel." It could have been better than what it was, but the finished product is never dull, well acted, and even a bit tense and shocking at times. I really do wish that it were just a little better, and I honestly debated between three stars and two and a half stars for a while. At the start we watch three girls getting rounded up by sex traders-we have Veronica, who has come from Poland after being tricked into an LA vacation, as well as her friend. Veronica is captured, but her friend escapes, getting hit by a car seconds later. They also get Adriana, a young girl of thirteen who goes out bike riding one day and doesn't come back. Her brother Jorge feels responsible-he bought her the bike-and goes to cross the border to get her back. He hides in the trunk of Texas cop Ray, who is out looking for information about a daughter that he just learned he had, and decides to help Jorge find his sister. They learn that she is about to be auctioned off online to the highest bidder, and since nobody will help them since it will cut into the grand scheme of the New Jersey's plans for the sex traders, Ray and Jorge decide to take matters into their own hands.

Along with Ray and Jorge's journey, we see the journey of Veronica and even Adriana, and this is where the more shocking portions of the movie are. The whole sex trade idea is a horrifying thought, and some of the images here are even worse-but not as intense as I hoped it would. There is a rather heart stopping segment where the Wainwright song is used, in a plot development I really could not see coming at all, even though the trailer almost hints at it-I'm telling you, it's one of the best trailers I've seen, but also one of the most revealing. It's terrible. Now the acting on both stories is quite good-Kline is at his best here, and its great since we haven't really seen him in a while in such a big role. There is also Alicja Bachleda-Curus as Veronica, the Polish girl that is captured, and Paulina Gaitan as Adriana who never goes over the top even during her most emotional scenes. She does the disturbed yet scared and anxious mixture very well. Perhaps the only performance that goes a bit over the top is Cesar Ramos as Jorge. The way he says certain things, and just his overly acting makes him seem more cartoonish than an actual flesh and blood character.

I said "Trade" was not perfect, and it certainly is far from it. At times the conflict and resolution seemed a bit too easy-and the ending maybe a little too pat, even though the mystery of Kline's daughter is never fully solved, although a possible solution is touched upon, but I'm glad they did not go that full route. Lets suspicions remain that way. Certain scenes like the actually bidding portion are not tense at all, and certainly not helped by a rather bad score. I figured the outcome of that segment because there would be no way to advance the story, but developments during the pick-up will make you sit up straight and pay attention. At times it tries to be this year's "Babel," trying to connect several different people in other countries to talk about how this is a global issue, and then it tries to be a mixture of "City of God" or "Amores Perros," with the strong handheld camera work during the most dramatic segments, and the similar location does not help. But I recommend this film for little moments where it finds it own voice, and finds it own storytelling methods, and this is where "Trade" becomes it most powerful. It's a minor drama in this big sea of films out now, but it is worth finding and seeing for the times where it becomes successful. And it's bleak as any film could be-although a strong notch below "In the Valley of Elah" which has increased suicide rates. But a good story can be depressing. Look at this content, after all.

Now Playing At:
Angelika Film Center
AMC Empire 25

Lust, Caution

Lust, Caution **

Directed by Ang Lee
Written by James Schamus and Hui-Ling Wang, based on the short story by Eileen Chang

Starring:
Joan Chen as Mrs. Yee
Tony Leung Chiu Wai as Mr. Yee
Lee-Hom Wang as Kuang Yu-Min
Wei Tang as Wang Jiazhi

157 Minutes(Rated NC-17 for some explicit sexuality. )
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I'd be honest right off the bat with you. I feel Ang Lee gets a little bit too much credit. I enjoyed "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" immensely, and "The Ice Storm" broke my heart, but I really was not the "Brokeback Mountain" bandwagon, but even that was better than his latest film-the highly anticipated and controversial "Lust, Caution,"-which I guess is the first film since "Where the Truth Lies" to be released with an NC-17 rating, but I could be wrong. This reviews for this film have been quite mixed, and I can say honestly that I did not like this movie. At 157 minutes, when all was said and done, I still felt like it was missing something-maybe it was passion or chemistry or suspense or even anything for me to care about. Nice imagery can only go so far. Lee has expanded a short story again, and while "Brokeback Mountain" was about a half hour shorter than this, the irony is that the story that "Lust, Caution" is based on is even shorter.

First of all, there were several "beginnings" to this movie, all of them promising for the story to make a jump start, and then pulling a fast one on you and having another introduction to the plot. The story doesn't actually start for an hour, and we get a rather annoying prelude to the plot. We start with Wei Tang, a newcomer to Asian cinema, who plays Wang Jiazhi in the middle of the Japanese occupation of Shanghai. She joins a theatre group that at first wants to unite the country, and then they decide to actually shed some blood for the country. And they decide to target one of the leaders, and prime bad men, Mr. Yee, played by Tony Leung, who has had many many better moments. Wang ends up pretending to be Mrs. Mak, the wife of a very respected importer/exporter, who is really just another member of the group, and ends up becoming his mistress. But she doesn't expect that she would fall in love with him.

Now the NC-17 rating has been talked about just because its rare for a film to receive it, and then it's even rarer for studios and the director and everyone to completely accept the rating. However Lee and Focus Features were right not to edit this movie. The sex here is not tacked on or un-needed. It's actually the most important sex that has been viewed on the screen since the summer's French film, the much better and much lovelier "Lady Chatterley," which is coming to DVD soon for everybody to see. I could also argue that the so called "explicit sexual content" is the motif to describe romance, but "Hostel" is basically just torture porn and that gets away with an R rating. But that's another argument for another day. The prime romance and chemistry between the two is meant to take place during the sex scenes-that is where the actual passion and heat is supposed to be shown, as opposed to in dialogue and conversation-which is minimal for them-after all they are both lying to each other in their own ways, and their entire relationship is based on deception. But not in bed. The final shot of the film is a shot of a bed too-I won't say what leads up to that, but it basically summed it up. This is more or less the main subtext between their romance-they act how they feel instead of saying it.

Now the beginning does a few shifts in time. We begin in the "present" day-present day being in the mid 1900's-where Wang has successfully infiltrated a group of ladies, one of them being Mrs. Yee. The conversations that are had during the games that the ladies play-a game I didn't know the object of, but if anybody knows I'd like to know-and the conversations had between the ladies are an interesting parallel to the lack of conversation between the two romantic leads-these ladies actually say everything. And then we go into the past where we learn of Wang's background with the theatre group, and a rather long first attempt she had at seducing Mr. Yee. That ends quickly, and we end up going back to square one again, and she once again gets into the group and tries to seduce the leader. I actually felt like I was cheated out of an hour. We go around in circles for awhile being we actually advance in plot. There is also barely any tension between the two, even though the script clearly calls for some actual sexual tension between the leads. And knowing how its all going to turn out is no help, as when there is supposed to be suspense, there is none. Except for a masterful scene of how the theatre/terrorist group ended up disbanding the first time, I was actually struggling to keep my eyes open several times during the last hour or so. I hardly use the word "boring" because I like to find other reasons why I don't like films, but I'll admit it: I was honestly very much bored by this. And I could swear I heard a few snores around me.

I will credit the period feel-the costumes designs, the set designs, the whole 1800's Shanghai feel is very much there. Lee has always been great with visuals-the mountains in "Brokeback," the wire fighting of "Crouching Tiger," the freezing trees and roads in "The Ice Storm," and even "Hulk" had it fair share of neat visuals-and the Hulk himself was an interesting creation. But pretty images can only go so far. I was never involved in what was happening in this film for a second, mainly because of the lack of energy on the acting front-that and the main characters were very much underwritten. I really feel that this will be the first of two disappointing follow-ups of the year, the other being Baumbach's "Margot at the Wedding" which I did not care for very much either.

This movie is playing at one location here in New York City-the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas-but its set for a mild expansion next week-the Sunshine has it planned. It'll be hard to get a strong expansion like "Brokeback Mountain" because of the NC-17, so I really wouldn't hold my breath for small towns with big chain movie theatre.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford ****

Directed by Andrew Dominik
Written by Andrew Dominik, based on the novel by Ron Hansen

Starring:
Brad Pitt as Jesse James
Mary-Louise Parker as Zee James
Casey Affleck as Robert Ford
Sam Rockwell as Charley Ford
Jeremy Renner as Wood Hite
Sam Shepard as Frank James
Garret Dillahunt as Ed Miller
Paul Schneider as Dick Liddil

160 Minutes(Rated R for some strong violence and brief sexual references. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" is a modern day epic, in the same feeling as the epics from the 40's and the 50's. It might even be my favorite out of the seemingly new regeneration of the western genre-"The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada" and "3:10 to Yuma" being two others. This film concentrates more on character and image, like the former films, and is hardly a shoot 'em up western like the latter. Just different types, but there was just more chew in the meat of this movie, and even though its nearly three hours long there is not a minute wasted, the performances are terrific, the direction and visuals are beautiful, and it has one of the most heartbreaking final thirty minutes of any other movie this year. This is easily one of the year's best movies.

Brad Pitt is known to having two types of performances. The first is where he is Mr. Pretty Boy-ala "Mr. and Mrs. Smith"-where he just relies on his good looks and popularity to turn in a performance. The second is where he actually seems to try-ala "Babel" and "Seven"-and he ends up blowing me away. Thankfully, and obviously, this is the latter. He plays Jesse James, the famous outlaw who was known for getting gangs together with his brothers and knocking off trains that are supposed to have lots of money in them. He has an admirer in Robert Ford (Bob) who has been a Jesse James obsessor for years. Being much younger, he's read the books about him, he has photos of him, everything. He's always noticed how similar the two of them are-silly things, like their eye colors, heights, etc. Eventually, Robert's brother Charlie ends up witnessing something happen to Jesse's cousin Wood, and suddenly Bob and Charlie become two people that have a lot to fear from Jesse James, right when Jesse asks them to join him in a gang.

It's really quite to pinpoint an exact plot to rely to any reader, as this isn't a film was a standard plot structure. It covers quite a large amount of time, and it unfolds itself very slowly to the viewer. I would warn anybody that wants to see this that this isn't like "3:10 to Yuma." This is more about character and image-with some images of such beauty that I haven't seen since "The New World." Writer and director Andrew Dominik treats almost every single image and every single camera motion with such a beautiful amount of grace. One thing that caught my attention as whenever Jesse was at a home setting away from his work, there is a certain blur on the camera-it's just out of focus a little bit, showing how distant he feels when he with him family as opposed to working or robbing. Dominik also has a knack for dialogue, and even though everything is delivered at an oddly slow pace-a lot of pauses in between what people say-he really does put you in the period well. And a great voice over narration-much better than the pretentious voice over done in "Into the Wild"-just adds to it, bookending the film, and making for great little moments through. Alongside this is the beautiful score by Nick Cave-you can hear parts of it in the films trailer, which is absolutely lovely and worth a watch for sure.

Every single performance in this movie is on target, especially Pitt. But there is also Casey Affleck-the talented one in the family-who plays Robert Ford, and this seems to be his real breakout role. He has had good bit parts in movies like "The Last Kiss" and "Good Will Hunting," and he did a good job leading "Lonesome Jim," but here is a film where he is quietly brilliant and its a film that will generally be seen by a large population. My last favorite of the cast members is Sam Rockwell, who doesn't nearly make enough movies, and after the rather "eh" "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" he shot back with great work here, in 'Joshua," and in next years "Snow Angels," which I've seen and you probably have not. While he is a bit more comic relief than the serious tension that develops between Jesse and Robert, he does it so well, and he really does light up the film every second he's around.

Now some may have a problem with the middle portion of this movie-it does go all over the place for a while, but I found it all work. But the last thirty minutes or so, when we learn how the title happens and what happens after that, is done so perfectly, and so beautifully that it was one of the most fitting endings of the year. And even though the final ten minutes sums up a large amount of time in such a short period of time, it is only for closure purposes-the main chunk of the story is over, and if it ended earlier the film would have been incomplete. For such a long title, there is really a lot to talk about. "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" is a different kind of modern western-which certainly have had a massive amount of blood and gore in addition to their plot and character development-and this might be my favorite out of the newbies. And one of my favorites of the year.

Now Playing At:
Angelika Film Center
AMC Lincoln Center 13 and IMAX

The Last Winter

The Last Winter **1/2

Directed by Larry Fessenden
Written by Larry Fessenden and Robert Leaver

Starring:
Ron Perlman as Ed Pollack
James LeGros as James Hoffman
Connie Britton as Abby Sellers
Kevin Corrigan as Motor
Jamie Harrold as Elliot Jenkins
Pato Hoffmann as Lee Means
Zach Gilford as Maxwell McKinder
Joanne Shenandoah as Dawn Russell
Larry Fessenden as Charles Foster

101 Minutes(Not Rated)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for something a little different. . .

Of late the environment really has been a big theme within almost every movie imaginable, especially documentaries. There was the informative Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth"-which I saw one too many times-then the less informative, carbon copy version "The 11th Hour," and there has been environmental messages tacked onto movies like "In the Shadow of the Moon" and "The Last Mimzy," but here is something a little bit more original-an environmentally friendly horror movie. This is the idea behind "The Last Winter," a well shot and sometimes scary horror movie, that reminded me a bit of "The Thing," by John Carpenter-except the monster is certainly not as imaginable or even that real looking.

The opening images show us landscapes from the Alaskan tundra, and as we go deeper and deeper into it, we realize that these main characters are completely alone. We open with a group of scientists trying to get oil out of the ground. They are led by Ed Pollack, who is a bit stunned to learn that they are under watch by James Hoffman, who was sent to make sure things are on the up and up. He is even more stunned to learn that Hoffman is fooling around with Abby, the only woman on the crew that Ed clearly has the eye for. As they get ready to begin drilling, certain members of the crew are struck by something odd out in the big white, and when one of the crew members goes missing the problem becomes more serious than they thought.

Although the premise makes it sound like it will, the movie never becomes a story about a crew where they are one by one picked off by a monster. Instead, even though certain members of the party go off on their own, they are really effected by a group instead of individuals. This is the key message of the movie-we will all be affected if global warming continues. Nature in this film is treating the human race as an infection and will do anything to stop it. We are the problem, and nature sees us as the villain. As I said through films like "Into the Wild" nature is quite a powerful force, and the fact that it is viewed as the most powerful thing on Earth-which is in-in this film, that fact alone would have been scary enough. But no. Writer and director Larry Fessenden ends up going another route and actually shows us the monster, and complete indie film creation. This is the most laughably fake thing I've seen in ages, and the good job that he does at creating tension and creepy setting is killed by this really bad creature that they show-it was almost like they superimposed the CGI directly onto the frame instead of creating it. I understand they had a low budget, but maybe they should have just ignored that factor. Nature itself is a more scary villain.

Fessenden really does show that he has what it takes to make more horror, and there is quite a bit of tension throughout the film. And the message is quite positive, even if the film portrays everything as quite bleak. This is almost a good film, and even though its mask is something different, I am getting a little tired of the environmental issues everywhere I go.

Romance and Cigarettes

Romance and Cigarettes ***

Directed by John Turturro
Written by John Turturro

Starring:
James Gandolfini as Nick Murder
Susan Sarandon as Kitty
Kate Winslet as Tula
Steve Buscemi as Angelo
Bobby Cannavale as Fryburg
Mandy Moore as Baby
Mary-Louise Parker as Constance
Aida Turturro as Rosebud
Christopher Walken as Cousin Bo
Barbara Sukowa as Gracie
Elaine Stritch as Nick's Mother
Eddie Izzard as Gene Vincent
Amy Sedaris as Frances

106 Minutes(Rated R for sexual content including some strong dialogue, and language. )
--------------------------------------------------------------
It actually feels kind of weird finally seeing and writing the review for John Turturro's delayed-for-so-long-that-its-been-forgotten film "Romance and Cigarettes." I saw the poster for this in a theatre nearly two years ago, and since then an epic story of legal debates and bankruptcy has stopped the film from coming out. Finally, ticked off and annoyed, Turturro has decided to finance the release himself, and you can now see it at the Film Forum in New York, up until October 2nd. At that point, maybe another theatre will pick it up. We'll see.

What we get is a rather messy, but well acted and sometimes very sweet, little movie-a different kind of musical as you'll see. We star James Gandolfini as Nick Murder, a New York construction worker that is cheating on his wife Kitty, with Tula-a natural redhead played by Kate Winslet, who gets the chance to do her actual accent for a change. His wife and three daughters all begin to give him the shun, and Nick ends up discovering that there is much more to life than sex, and maybe this little fling is nothing more than a mid-life crisis.

It's an extremely loose story, and at times you'll wonder why and what you are even watching. The first half plays like a rather campy and cheesy musical-with no original numbers and all cover songs-at times the actors don't even look like they are singing, and I learned later that Susan Sarandon was actually dubbed. We have comedy performances by Steve Buscemi, and Christopher Walken who is doing something other than deadpan for a change-even though one could argue that "Hairspray" was quite lively, but this was made two years before that was even released. The second half turns more into a romantic drama, and I think this is where the film finds it true tone. The last twenty minutes of this movie are rather heartbreaking and poignant and even beautiful in a way, and the movie ends on a real strong note, even though its a bit of a mess getting there. At times I wondered what the real point of all this was, but then it dawned on me that this was a movie about finding the love you already knew you had, and not screwing it up.

So "Romance and Cigarettes" is a bit of a mess, screenplay wise. I think Turturro himself was confused about what kind of genre he wanted, and so he tried to have it all. But it does make the movie suffer to an extent, even though some of the jokes are rather fun-and Kate Winslet is great as the crude mistress-from the first line its nothing but sex joke after sex joke with her, tastefully done and even very funny. It's just the type of girl she is. Gandolfini does a real good job, and any movie where he sings, dances, gets circumcised, and does a dream sequence where he is getting whipped by his daughter, and yet still manage to appear the tough guy is alright in my book. And Mary Louise Parker is almost the epitome of cool as one of Nick's freeloading musician daughters. "Romance and Cigarettes" is a mess, but it's an entertaining and rather sweet mess. Maybe during the delay there could have been some revisions, but its a decent movie to see, and the wait has finally ended.

Fitzcarraldo

Fitzcarraldo (1982) ***1/2

Directed by Werner Herzog
Written by Werner Herzog

Starring:
Klaus Kinski as Brian Sweeney Fitzgerald - 'Fitzcarraldo'
José Lewgoy as Don Aquilino
Miguel Ángel Fuentes as Cholo
Paul Hittscher as Captain
Huerequeque Enrique Bohorquez as Huerequeque (The Cook)

158 Minutes(Rated PG)
------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I got lucky that the IFC Center in Manhattan is doing a week long re-issue of the Werner Herzog movie "Fitzcarraldo," because I don't think there is any other way to see this than on the big screen. Herzog has always been about visuals, and even though I find him to be a better documentary filmmaker than a fiction storyteller, he always makes me feel like I'm watching a documentary. From the amazing achieve footage in "The Wild Blue Yonder," to turning an awful remake of "Nosferatu" into a look at nature and some pretty cool footage of bats, Herzog is always showing me something neat. And "Fitzcarraldo" is not exception. Maybe a little longer than it should, and maybe not the best narrative in years, but there are some sequences in this film where you will literally have your mouth open, asking yourself "How did they do that?" This was made well before computers were brought out onto the screen, so you know for a fact that someone Herzog pulled this all off. More on that later.

In the IFC Center program calender book, there is a small blurb about "Fitzcarraldo," and at the bottom of the summary there is a quote by Herzog himself. It reads:

"I live my life or end my life by this project."

This line pretty much works for the main character in the film, Brian Sweeney Fitzgerald, who also goes by Fitzcarraldo. Now Fitzcarraldo has a woman of his dreams and a life in the Peruvian jungle, but there is something that he loves more than anything: the opera. He loves the opera so much that he will take a 1,000 mile boat ride to the nearest opera house to see a show-even at the expense of his hands. And so what he wants to do more than anything is bring opera to the people in the jungle, and he decides that what he wants to do is build an opera house in the middle of the jungle. And he buys a boat off a wealthy man and takes a crew to go out into the jungle and build the house of his dreams, and get his favorite singer to appear there on the night of its opening.

It's a very simple story, but Herzog fiction is known for that. It's his talent as a film maker to bring us some images that we've never seen before. Now Klaus Kinski plays Fitzcarraldo, a small and rather fragile man with so much energy. I think the only actor that I could really see playing this part or another Kinski role is Willim Dafoe-aside from a similar facial appearance and body structure, they also have a bit of the same personality, and the ability to disappear into various roles and characters. And while Fitzcarraldo is a rather interesting character, I think the best character in this film ends up being the boat he buys. This is one of the greatest movie props I've ever seen-a massive triple decker boat which goes through so much at expense of the crew and captain. There is a rather breathtaking sequence about two thirds of the way through where the boat ends up falling on a ditch, and Fitzcarraldo and crew make a series of rails using the bodies of trees to try and pull this boat out again. And this was clearly such an amazing labor of love to shoot, and I knew that all of it was real. Packing up hundreds of extras to do this stunt, I could how Herzog was worried about death while filming this. And these images being so real really do make you feel like you're watching a documentary.

I think that "Fitzcarraldo" is a strong success on the visual front, but as a narrative story being told it fails in its own way. I never felt like Herzog was giving us much dimension to Fitzcarraldo, and there isn't really a story arc to follow. I was never invested in the characters beyond the visuals, but when the major stunts and set pieces begin to appear, it was amazing to behold. Herzog is a genius behind the camera, but even with movies like "Rescue Dawn," which I liked a lot, he tries harder with visual technique than he does with story and character. Luckily "Rescue Dawn" has a massive amount of talent in front of the camera to counter that, but Kinski is really doing a solo job here when it comes to character, and even though he does a great job it's just not enough on that respect.

Into the Wild

Into the Wild ***

Directed by Sean Penn
Written by Sean Penn, based on the book by Jon Krakauer

Starring:
Emile Hirsch as Christopher McCandless
Marcia Gay Harden as Billie McCandless
William Hurt as Walt McCandless
Jena Malone as Carine McCandless
Vince Vaughn as Wayne Westerberg
Kristen Stewart as Tracy
Catherine Keener as Jan Burres
Hal Holbrook as Ron Franz

140 Minutes(Rated R for language and some nudity. )
------------------------------------------------------------------
As anybody who reads this website would know, I just recently got back from Toronto, where I spent thirteen days by my lonesome making friends and seeing films at the Toronto Film Festival. This was my first trip away from the home alone, and on the train ride there I read the Jack Kerouac novel "On the Road." While Kerouac's novel about a narrator going on various car ride trips with his friends and getting wasted and hanging out with odd types did not inspire me to want to do the same, certain scenes in "Into the Wild" actually did make me want to journey out into the wilderness and experience life like that.

Emile Hirsch, who has been wasting his times in horrible movies like 'The Girl Next Door" and "Lords of Dogtown", stars as Christopher McCandless, who has recently graduated from college. His parents, who have been fighting for years, want to give him a new car to prepare him for Harvard, and Chris would rather not have any material possessions. And he leaves everything behind-even his sister who does love him-and goes missing from his family to go out into the wild. From this point on we get to see Chris, who changes his name to Alex on the road, and his journey. He meets a guy named Wayne, played by Vince Vaughn, and gets a wheat plowing job with him. He goes onto the river, buys a kayak, and does illegal rapid rafting. He burns all of his money and gets rid of his identification, and lives on berries and wild animals, while his parents are back at home trying to find any clues about where he might be.

Now Sean Penn directed and wrote the film, based off a book by Jon Krakauer, which was actually based on a real life person. I think in the end Penn, even though he never appears on the screen, was responsible for all the flaws the film had. His script at times makes this character of Chris to appear to be more godly than he really is. No matter where he goes he has people that love him, hardly any conflict except for an incident on a train, and with the voice over narration by his sister Clare, played by Jena Malone, she acts as if he is the glue that holds the family together, and his whole life is more meaningful than anybody else going through the same stuff. The voice over narration is sometimes far too overly poetic for its own good, and the hero worshipping angle that the script does give Chris was sometimes a bit eye rolling, and strongly unrealistic. Penn's directing gets a bit showy at times, and sometimes he over stylizes some scenes, or tries to make drama than there really is.

Aside from that, the performances are all quite good, especially Hirsch who probably has the toughest job at all. In addition to all these boating adventures, hiking adventures, and other excursions in the wild, he is forced to make the viewer like him. After all, we need someone likable to follow if the movie spans a hundred and fifty minutes. And he does that very well, and it seems like it was quite a good time filming this. Supporting work by Catherine Keener, Kristen Stewart, William Hurt, Marcia Gay Harden, and especially Hal Halbrook are all appreciated as well. And this is another rather haunting tale of nature, oddly enough in the same vein as the masterpiece documentary "Grizzly Man," which tells about how nature can overpower man-can drive you nuts and can even take your soul away from you-turn you into a different person. Honestly the ending of this movie will stay with you long after its done. "Into the Wild" is a very good adventure tale-simple in its story, and epic in its execution.

In the Valley of Elah

In the Valley of Elah ***1/2

Directed by Paul Haggis
Written by Paul Haggis

Starring:
Tommy Lee Jones as Hank Deerfield
Charlize Theron as Det. Emily Sanders
Jason Patric as Lt. Kirklander
Susan Sarandon as Joan Deerfield
James Franco as Sgt. Dan Carnelli
Barry Corbin as Arnold Bickman
Josh Brolin as Chief Buchwald
Frances Fisher as Evie

121 Minutes(Rated R for violent and disturbing content, language and some sexuality/nudity. )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Those of you who are familiar with the scripts and films of Paul Haggis know that subtly is not the name of his game. When he has an idea or a motif that he wants to use, he practically throws it down your throat for you to know. He did it in "Million Dollar Baby." He did it a lot in "Crash." And he's doing it here with "In the Valley of Elah." But what's my point? Well, even though he isn't very subtle in his methods, all three of those films managed to be quite powerful and very moving. "Crash" actually made me cry and few times in there, something very hard to do, and I even named it the best movie of 2005. "In the Valley of Elah" won't make it to the shortlist, but it is extremely well acted and very powerful, even though Haggis' anti-war message practically punches you in the face, especially the final shot.

Tommy Lee Jones becomes two for two-his other great performance being in "No Country for Old Men" which is coming out in November for you all to see-I've seen it and you could see how if you click here. He plays Hank Deerfield, who wakes up one November morning to learn that his son, who was stationed in Iraq and was supposed to be on his way home, has vanished. He goes to the army base to see what is up, and is shocked to find his son's body has already been found, right on the Mexican border, in pieces. With the help of Det. Emily Sanders, played by Charlize Theron, he tries to find out what happened to his son-using the video clips that his son recorded on his cell phone, the witnesses of the other soldiers that knew his son, and his own instinct as a former detective as his guide.

Haggis clearly saw a whole bunch of different routes that he could go through with this plot. This is not only a mystery story about what happened to Hank's son. There are several different angles that you could go through. On one level, yes, it is a detective mystery. On another level there is a father and son story, told from several different angles. The first is a father doing whatever he can to find out what happened to his boy. As the movie goes on you see that Hank was never the best father-maybe a little bit too hard on his son to go fight and take up after his father-and maybe Hank is trying to avenge his son, or at least prove to both himself and his son that he did love him very much. And then there is my favorite angle-at least the one I found the most interesting-where Hank is learning things about his son that he wished he didn't know. His son is dead, but the ones that knew him can say what he really did, and Hank learns all about things his son did alone-drugs, various woman, etc, that maybe he wouldn't be proud of. This could change the view that he has about his son from the start, and I found this an interesting angle that Haggis touched upon, but I wished looked into more.

Tommy Lee Jones gives a silently powerful performance, and I hope he gets a nomination for sure. His scenes with Charlize Theron are almost amazing to watch, and Theron is the rare Oscar winner that keeps delivering after the big win. The win was clearly not a fluke. They are really the central actors here, even though there is a rather star studded supporting cast that barely reach ten minutes of screen time, including a barely cameo appearance by Susan Sarandon as Hank's wife, who manages to be better in those ten minutes than some actors were in starring roles this year. Haggis' script gives quite the anti-war message, and if you managed to miss it at all-which I'm sure you won't-the final shot will explain everything. And even though Haggis may not come up with the best ways of being hidden about what he is trying to say-literally watching some of his scenes are worst than a first grade class-he is still a good storyteller, a decent director, and always assembles great performances by his casts. "In the Valley of Elah" is a very moving and powerful film, albeit a depressing one, but well worth taking the journey.